Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:06 PM Masahiko Sawada  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:29 PM John Naylor  wrote:
> > Locally (not CI), we should try big inputs to make sure we can
> > actually go up to many GB -- it's easier and faster this way than
> > having vacuum give us a large data set.
>
> I'll do these tests.

I just remembered this -- did any of this kind of testing happen? I
can do it as well.

> Thank you. I've incorporated all the comments above. I've attached the
> latest patches, and am going to push them (one by one) after
> self-review again.

One more cosmetic thing in 0001 that caught my eye:

diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/Makefile
b/src/backend/access/common/Makefile
index b9aff0ccfd..67b8cc6108 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/common/Makefile
+++ b/src/backend/access/common/Makefile
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ OBJS = \
  syncscan.o \
  toast_compression.o \
  toast_internals.o \
+ tidstore.o \
  tupconvert.o \
  tupdesc.o

diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/meson.build
b/src/backend/access/common/meson.build
index 725041a4ce..a02397855e 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/common/meson.build
+++ b/src/backend/access/common/meson.build
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ backend_sources += files(
   'syncscan.c',
   'toast_compression.c',
   'toast_internals.c',
+  'tidstore.c',
   'tupconvert.c',
   'tupdesc.c',
 )

These aren't in alphabetical order.